bakerstreetfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Sherrinford
Welcome to my talk page. If you'd like to talk about my edits, or need my help, or want to ask questions, then leave me a comment below. Please don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so I can message you back. Customary welcome from the founder I'm happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you! Please leave me a message on my talk page if I can help with anything. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 01:03, February 17, 2014 (UTC) Step Nine Hello, I noticed in your recent edits that you copied the plot section of the Step Nine page from another website. Please don't copy and paste huge chunks of material like this - it's a breach of copyright and it's much better for us to have original material. Having small amounts - such as a short summary - isn't so bad, but even then it should be referenced so people know where we got the info from. Let me know if you need help with this or anything else. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 09:47, February 19, 2014 (UTC) :P.S. I also noticed that in your edits to the various episode summaries that you removed links to other pages on the wiki. It's good practice to have links to other pages on the wiki so people can easily explore and learn more. As a general rule of thumb - and so pages aren't flooded with links - I generally link to a page once per section. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 10:16, February 19, 2014 (UTC) ::Understood and noted. --Sherrinford (talk) 16:39, February 19, 2014 (UTC) I took the direct quote, past tense included, from the original twelve steps of the AA program. Alex Jiskran 04:47, June 8, 2014 (UTC) :We don't have to quote it directly, do we? Can't we just paraphrase? 04:48, June 8, 2014 (UTC) ::And for that reason I left Sherrinford's change. Merely pointing out that it wasn't an error. Alex Jiskran 04:56, June 8, 2014 (UTC) :::If that is the actual quote then it should be quoted as it is. In English, we can't paraphrase an actual quote. --Sherrinford (talk) 09:25, June 8, 2014 (UTC) ::::What do you mean, we can't paraphrase a quote? That's the only way to paraphrase something. 09:28, June 8, 2014 (UTC) :::::You can't change or paraphrase a quote if it is inside a quotation mark. --Sherrinford (talk) 09:31, June 8, 2014 (UTC) indent Well, no, that's why you paraphrase it. But if there's nothing the matter, then nothing is the matter. I was just confused ^^" 09:32, June 8, 2014 (UTC) :My point was if you're going to paraphrase it then don't use quotation marks. --Sherrinford (talk) 09:34, June 8, 2014 (UTC) Questions from wikia contributors Hi! I am interested to know where the character Sherrinford started. Thanks! -- 07:41, February 20, 2014 (UTC) :Thank you for your interest on the matter. Sherrinford is one of the first names considered by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle before settling on Sherlock. He was first proposed by William S. Baring-Gould who wrote in his biography "Sherlock Holmes of Baker Street" that Sherrinford was the eldest brother of Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes once stated that his family were country squires, which means that the eldest brother would have to stay to manage the house. If Mycroft were the eldest then he couldn't play the role he does in four stories of the Sherlock Holmes canon, so Sherrinford frees them both. This position is strengthened by the fact that Mycroft's general position as a senior civil servant was a common choice among the younger sons of the gentry. If I may, I suggest that you create an account. It's quite simple and your IP address won't show up. --Sherrinford (talk) 16:18, February 20, 2014 (UTC) Do you have any information on when Sherlock Season 4 will air? -- 16:08, February 21, 2014 (UTC) :Yes. A BBC insider said: 'The BBC is desperate for a Sherlock Christmas Day special this year. It wants its biggest guns ready.' If I may, I suggest that you create an account. It's quite simple and your IP address won't show up. --Sherrinford (talk) 16:52, February 21, 2014 (UTC) Will there be a Season 3 of Elementary? -- 12:47, February 24, 2014 (UTC) :According to tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com, CBS: 'Elementary' Is Certain To Be Renewed. CBS hasn't canceled a second season drama since Shark in 2008, and sophomore drama Elementary's ratings are far from the calamity that would cause them to consider cancelling it, so it's certainly safe for renewal for next season (and at least the following season as well). Edit/Update: And CBS hasn't canceled a veteran drama airing Monday-Thursday since the 2008-09 season. Yet more historical precedent. So most likely, yes there will be a Season 3 of Elementary. If I may, I suggest that you create an account. It's quite simple and your IP address won't show up. --Sherrinford (talk) 02:43, February 25, 2014 (UTC) ::Season 3 of Elementary has been confirmed by CBS. So, hooray for us Elementary fans!--Sherrinford (talk) 13:07, March 20, 2014 (UTC) How many people has Sherlock Holmes killed in the canon? -- 02:46, February 26, 2014 (UTC) How do I contact you? -- 00:47, March 28, 2014 (UTC) Viewing figures Thanks a lot for adding viewing figures to pages, but when you do could you add a reference at the same time please, so people know where you got the info from (and just as a quick fyi, Wikipedia or IMDb are not reliable sources). --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 03:13, February 21, 2014 (UTC) :Yes, of course. --Sherrinford (talk) 07:04, February 25, 2014 (UTC) ::You're still adding viewing figures without adding a reference at the same time. Could you please make sure you add a reference for this information. If you don't do this I may have to go through and remove the info you've added. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 08:43, February 28, 2014 (UTC) ::Yes, those are the ones I mean. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 14:18, February 28, 2014 (UTC) Another Sherrinford question Although more of a personal preference, do you have any special actors you'd like Sherrinford to be played by if he was to appear in Sherlock? --Saints'Hoodie (Talk) :Ian Hallard or Brad Pitt. That will be interesting. Thank you for the inquiry. --Sherrinford (talk) 02:43, February 25, 2014 (UTC) Re: The Deductionist I've had a look at your edit to "The Deductionist", and it's nearly there. If you look at how I've changed it then you can see I've added the title of the article linked to, the authors name, the websites name, and the date it was published on. I've also added the ref to the infobox so it's directly after the viewing figures that it's referencing. I hope this helps, and sorry for the wait for a reply. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 23:37, February 24, 2014 (UTC) :Much appreciated. --Sherrinford (talk) 02:43, February 25, 2014 (UTC) Human Error Hi Sherrinford, I was wondering why were you deleting categories and then putting them back? I assume that was a mistake, like when you accidentally added the category "Anti" to Irene Adler. ~Obi (Talk) :As Sherlock would say, human error. I was going to put Irene into the anti-hero category but my hand slipped. Sherrinford (talk) 18:51, March 2, 2014 (UTC) Politicians category Hey Sherrinford, would you mind participating in the discussion about the politician category instead of just adding it to pages before a decision has been made? Thanks. ~Obi (Talk) :Kindly send the link to me. --Sherrinford (talk) 16:35, March 11, 2014 (UTC) ::Here is the link. The reason I started the discussion is because the category isn't official; no page exists for it, and I like to get input from other editors before making a category. ~Obi (Talk) Making a page a candidate for deletion Hello! When you want to make a page/category/etc a candidate for deletion you should do so using the template and giving a reason - including starting a discussion on the talk page. Otherwise it's likely to get little attention as no one will know why you think it should be deleted. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 21:14, March 11, 2014 (UTC) Changing images Hello! I just wondered why you had been changing the images in the info boxes on lots of Elementary episode pages? I just ask because I didn't notice anything wrong with the images that were there before. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 13:06, March 31, 2014 (UTC) Tense Hi there. Yes, I have read the MoS, however it is still under discussion. I don't feel like it's correct in saying that she 'was' Watson's sister when she's still alive. She still is his sister. 08:52, April 30, 2014 (UTC) :I understand your POV but in majority of the pages, we had already started changing it to past tense. AO said and I quote, "Past tense in articles is a style choice for this wiki - a lot of pages don't adhere to this yet, I know, but I'm slowly trying to alter them. It gives a uniform style across the wiki and you don't have to come back later and alter things when they become past tense." The dates as well, the consensus was or maybe following other users' lead was DD/MM/YYYY. --Sherrinford (talk) 08:58, April 30, 2014 (UTC) ::Ahh, I changed that date because, without the 'st', it had to read that way, although it could very easily just be 1st January, 2014, however if the day does not have the shortened letters, it has to come second as MM/DD/YYYY. ::I've left a few comments on the MoS talk page, as I am rather new and don't know all the conventions of the wiki yet. I won't change any more tenses (sorry about that), but I will probably note somewhere that I believe active characters should be in the present tense. I've only seen the 2010 version, but I'm sure that characters don't often die or become redundant enough to state everything in the past tense :S I'm hoping that a few of my other changes can be implemented though—how do you feel about writing every article in-universe? 09:08, April 30, 2014 (UTC) :::On what style manual are you referring? MLA or APA? If left to me, I would have it as just MM/DD/YYYY eg. April 30, 2014. That is also how the time of our signatures appear. As for writing every article in-universe, I still have not decided on that. When the other core users are active and we finalize the MoS, I'll give my decision then. You also did not need to apologize for something so simple. --Sherrinford (talk) 10:49, April 30, 2014 (UTC) ::::I would have it as MM/DD/YYYY as well, as I think it's a neater format. Ahh, well, I was only curious because, as I mentioned on my post on the MoS talk page, I have begun creating 'cite episode' templates. That's why I was wondering about your take on in-universe articles. If we aren't going to write in-universe, they have less purpose (and do you think it would be better if I don't change it over? I was only doing it because it was neat—it's not as though I'm adding or removing unverified/good sources. I'm just changing the way it's displayed. But if you think I should, uh, not do that, I can stop it ^^•) ::::Ahh, well, I didn't want to get off on the wrong foot is all by being all angry. Apologies are the best way to avoid that, I think :) 10:59, April 30, 2014 (UTC) Use of the historic present Especially given that the subsequent main verb ('stars') appears in the present, my usage was considered and deliberate. The historic present is a recognised literary form. Alex Jiskran 11:02, May 1, 2014 (UTC) :Can't you just change it to starred? We really have to finalize and and settle to an agreement about the tenses. Would you mind providing an input on the MoS? --Sherrinford (talk) 11:07, May 1, 2014 (UTC) The (debatable) issue of punctuation Whilst I take your point about a clause, to me the example in question is too long, complex and nuanced to feel like such, and I for one would therefore deem it more suited to designation as a sentence. This doesn't make you wrong - it is, I believe, one of those many areas of English where priorities and definitions differ. Alex Jiskran 06:52, May 24, 2014 (UTC) Formatting Okay, as there's no defined way to format, how about I won't change only these types of things if you don't? 11:46, May 30, 2014 (UTC) :Okay but you're the one who said you wanted spaces so why were you cramping them up?--Sherrinford (talk) 11:51, May 30, 2014 (UTC) ::What do you mean? Those spaces I find to be unnecessary, but that's a personal preference. I just don't see the need for them. It seems that on some articles, sometimes, it creates spaces when you look at it on the page, not just in source mode. 11:54, May 30, 2014 (UTC) :::I would appreciate it if you finished this discussion before going off and changing things. I have edited it like that in order for it to be easier to read in source mode. 01:04, June 3, 2014 (UTC) ::::Respectfully, try looking at your edits. The codes appear in the actual pages. --Sherrinford (talk) 01:10, June 3, 2014 (UTC) indent I don't know what you mean. 01:11, June 3, 2014 (UTC) :Observe: a recent edit of yours. --Sherrinford (talk) 01:17, June 3, 2014 (UTC) ::Yes, I put each episode on a different line. It makes no difference to the aesthetics of a page, but it does make it easier to see which episodes they were/are in when viewing the page in source mode to edit it. As another note, I'm making more than just those edits; as in, they aren't all just based on aesthetics. 01:22, June 3, 2014 (UTC) Quotes Those quotes are needed as they are for the episode titles. It's just how the series' need to be italicised. 09:00, May 31, 2014 (UTC) :Your source? Quotation marks are use for quotes, not for episode titles. --Sherrinford (talk) 09:02, May 31, 2014 (UTC) ::We don't have anything in our MoS for it yet, thus I've been using wikipedia's. It is more correct to have it than not. Do you have a source that says that they shouldn't be used? 09:06, May 31, 2014 (UTC) :::Your source is Wikipedia? That's suppose to convince me? Are you a troll? --Sherrinford (talk) 09:10, May 31, 2014 (UTC) ::::Are you kidding me? As if a troll would spend so much time on here being constructive. You don't have a source for yours, but I do for mine. Don't change them unless you can find one more 'official' than mine, go ahead, but if not, leave it. Start a discussion on the MoS page. 09:21, May 31, 2014 (UTC) :::::Do you know the root word of quotation? It's quote. What's the value of putting it there anyway? --Sherrinford (talk) 09:25, May 31, 2014 (UTC) indent Aye, but quotes are usually phrases, which is not always the case—for example, the "consulting criminal" on the Jim Moriarty page does not need to have those marks. Yes, Sherlock said it, but it's a fact. It's who he is. We don't quote that John is "a doctor", even though other characters say it often enough. We use italics to identify the series (ie. Sherlock, and Elementary), and quotes are used to distinguish smaller titles from that. Oh, more sources. There's this one, and this one, and I also found this one on using quotes and italics in sources. 09:32, May 31, 2014 (UTC) :Start a discussion and ask input from others. --Sherrinford (talk) 09:40, May 31, 2014 (UTC) ::You're the one with an issue, and no sources. I don't feel like I have to start anything. 09:43, May 31, 2014 (UTC) :::You're the one who went wild and change everything without consulting any of us. Point the blame to yourself. --Sherrinford (talk) 09:46, May 31, 2014 (UTC) ::::I'm not blaming anyone. I just have actual sources outside the wiki—several other manuals of style—that all collaborate one another as to why I am making that change. So, I haven't changed everything. I made a grammatical edit that is correct in every style guide I can find. You want to go against the English language, go ahead, but I'm not starting a discussion that will begin with 'Should we use English rules in articles or not?'. 09:54, May 31, 2014 (UTC) :::::You are a troll. No one is against using English rules here in the wiki. The issue is with quotation. Why don't you start a discussion? Is it pride? Or perhaps you think you know everything? --Sherrinford (talk) 10:07, May 31, 2014 (UTC) indent I think you need to look up the definition of a troll, then, if you think I am one. If you aren't against using English rules, why are we having this discussion, then? Quotation is a part of English, as is pretty much any other formatting issue on this wiki, whether explicit or not. The fact that we start new ideas and topics as new paragraphs is an English thing, for instance. I will not start a useless discussion over a single formatting issue that, as I've pointed out, applies everywhere. You are the one who wants to ignore standard English rules, and thus the onus falls to you to prove why we should. 10:32, May 31, 2014 (UTC) :SMH... You just don't understand. I won't argue with you anymore. No wonder, you have been called a little girl and always finds herself in arguments with others. You're so self-absorbed. Do what you want. --Sherrinford (talk) 10:37, May 31, 2014 (UTC) ::I don't know what 'SMH' means. I do understand. You just want your way without providing evidence as to why, and you're unwilling to commit to it by starting a discussion. Everything else you have said means nothing; where's the proof? 11:19, May 31, 2014 (UTC) If I can butt in to this discussion, I have also been putting series titles in italics and individual episodes in quotation marks, much the same as I've been putting the novels in italics and the individual short stories in quotation marks. I assumed that was how everyone was doing it. If you'd like to change this, Sherrinford, I suggest you start a community discussion about it. Also, could we keep personal attacks out of this, please? They have no place in community discussions. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 14:42, May 31, 2014 (UTC) Undoing Again, can you please leave an edit summary when undoing work? It really helps. Why did you undo it? Also, it's now an edit war and the status quo prevails; I'm going to change it back until we finish discussing it. 05:45, June 4, 2014 (UTC) :Again, look at the actual page when you edit. Use the preview button besides the publish button. --Sherrinford (talk) 05:47, June 4, 2014 (UTC) ::I did; I can't see the same issue as the other pages had. The yellow box around the 'young Sherlock' was caused by a spacing issue, not by adding those breaks. For some reason, that issue only occurs on the 'writer' parameter, as far as I'm aware. 05:48, June 4, 2014 (UTC) :::You claim it is neater but that is only your opinion. Also, the actual page or the visual page is more important than the source mode. --Sherrinford (talk) 05:50, June 4, 2014 (UTC) ::::And there is nothing wrong with the visual on the actual page. Yes, there is for the 'writer' one, and I won't ever change that again unless I figure out if there is something I can do to change it. Show me the issue with this page and having it spaced out like that. 05:53, June 4, 2014 (UTC) :::::SMH... That's only your preference. Why should I comply and follow you?--Sherrinford (talk) 05:55, June 4, 2014 (UTC) indent You shouldn't. And I still have no idea what 'SMH' means. However, as it's an edit war, we do need to sort out this issue. You were able to show me last time exactly why my edits should not be made, and I complied. I can see the error; however, I cannot see any errors with the formatting as it stands now, aside from being neater to read in source mode. Show me why you're right and I'm wrong, and I will happily stop arguing this. Until then, there is no need to continuously edit things that don't need to be changed. 05:58, June 4, 2014 (UTC) :Look at it in visual mode. There is no consistency in the spaces in the section of appearances, between Sherlock (2010), Unaired Pilot, and Many Happy Returns. It should, this is not just my preference, be consistent. --Sherrinford (talk) 06:03, June 4, 2014 (UTC) ::As in, when I'm editing in visual mode? I don't do that. Looking at the completed page (as in, not in any editing mode), I see nothing wrong with it, and certainly nothing noticeably different. If you go check out the MoS talk page, I just added a new topic regarding this issue. 06:08, June 4, 2014 (UTC) :::I suppose I'll check it. --Sherrinford (talk) 06:10, June 4, 2014 (UTC) ::::If you could leave your thoughts for everything else that you think you need to weigh in on, that would be awesome, too. I'm tired of these open discussions; I think that's partially why this has been happening lately @_@ 06:11, June 4, 2014 (UTC) Difference Hey, I just wanted to know what the difference is with these? 16:03, June 6, 2014 (UTC) :AO said the one you use is for the canon stories while the one I use is for everything else, if I remember correctly. --Sherrinford (talk) 16:06, June 6, 2014 (UTC) ::Huh, well, that seems incredibly unnecessary @_@ but I also think that if we don't have an actual photo, putting the other one up is a bit... eh. Doesn't matter. Okay, I'm going to bed. Thanks! 16:08, June 6, 2014 (UTC) :::Actually, one more thing—why did you change 'goofs' to 'continuity error'? They mean the same thing only one is shorter. 16:11, June 6, 2014 (UTC) ::::Actually no. Goof is more like a joke. I don't think they intended it to happen so it's better to call it an error. --Sherrinford (talk) 16:13, June 6, 2014 (UTC) :::::I think it's a different context. Sure, there's goofing off, but according to my dictionary, a goof is "a mistake". IMDb calls it a goof, as does wikipedia (but I know you don't like me using that). The first thing that comes up when you google 'goof' is a definition that calls it a mistake. I don't see the issue with using it when it is a term that is generally used. 16:23, June 6, 2014 (UTC) Janine Oh, I know that happened in that episode. The cite was for the proof that Mary did indeed do such a thing. 03:00, June 8, 2014 (UTC) Tense The tense is actually still under discussion, so it would be better not to change that at all until we come to a consensus. 14:01, June 11, 2014 (UTC) Drummond You do realise that the page is about a character, not the episode, right? And that this is an encyclopaedia and emphasis is also a form of bias? Which really shouldn't be included in any sort of reference, such as an encyclopaedia. 14:39, June 11, 2014 (UTC) :So you're saying encyclopaedias don't use bolds and italics to emphasise? Of course, they do. The page was trying to show that despite what anyone may say, the change of a person comes from himself. --Sherrinford (talk) 14:53, June 11, 2014 (UTC) ::I'm saying that the emphasis is unneeded, and makes whoever is reading that article believe that's what the episode is about, even though that's purely up for interpretation. Furthermore, that page isn't even about the episode—it's about a character. Emphasising those words draws the attention away from the purpose of that page, which is to convey information on Drummond—''not'' Ennis' motives. 14:56, June 11, 2014 (UTC) Capitalisation Oh, you mean this Webster? An example from the Oxford Style Guide: Although being president of the United States is stressful, President Obama was glad to be re-elected. So, by doing simple substitution, the sentence, IU, would read: Although being captain of the 11th precinct is stressful, Captain Gregson was glad to be re-elected. So, yea, the 'job' in the infobox should be capitalised, but in the sentence in the body of the article, it shouldn't be. There's also this, in case that other stuff wasn't enough. You know, you could actually contribute to the MoS talk page discussions if you have such an issue with the way I do things. And links and stuff, and talking? Yeah, that helps, too. 02:52, June 12, 2014 (UTC) Your opinion is needed! Hello! When you get the chance, could you please comment on the issues raised here: Manual of Style: please comment! --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 05:10, June 12, 2014 (UTC) Edit What was the point of this? And, why did you remove the sources? 04:37, June 14, 2014 (UTC) :It was who reworded it incorrectly. Though, I did unintentionally removed the source for the quote. --Sherrinford (talk) 06:21, June 15, 2014 (UTC) ::Alright, well just be careful ^^" It just seemed like a weird thing to do ^^; 06:24, June 15, 2014 (UTC) Images and image category Whilst it's under debate it's probably a good idea not to add any more silhouette images or the "Image needed" category to pages. Thanks! --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 13:33, June 21, 2014 (UTC) :I'm going to direct you back to this message. 07:04, June 22, 2014 (UTC) ::I didn't notice. Lol, my bad. --Sherrinford (talk) 07:08, June 22, 2014 (UTC) :::No problem ^^" 07:12, June 22, 2014 (UTC) Irene Adler edit Hey, I didn't wanna just remove it, but I don't think it's necessary to say that she appeared in Sherlock's mind palace; we only really need to say she appeared in the episode, and then expand on it later in the article to say that she was just a projection of his after he was shot. I just think that it crowds the infobox a bit too much, and is, well, unnecessary when we do elaborate on it later. 19:38, June 22, 2014 (UTC) :I added a note. Acceptable for you? --Sherrinford (talk) 23:32, June 22, 2014 (UTC) ::Yeah, that's fine :) I was just iffy about it the way it was, but a note is fine. Thanks! 23:33, June 22, 2014 (UTC) Pointless edits Is it really necessary to add spaces to the end of articles? Because that seems rather pointless to me. Also I noticed that you are making edits amazingly quickly (for example, three edits in the same minute at one point according to your contributions page). Are you using a bott? Because I find it hard to believe that it's possible to edit so quickly otherwise. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 07:06, June 24, 2014 (UTC) :Nope, I'm not using a bot. I open the articles at different tabs and then compare them to make sure they are all uniform and then I click the "Publish" button. --Sherrinford (talk) 07:26, June 24, 2014 (UTC) ::Well, either way, could you please stop making these pointless edits such as adding/removing spaces, removing and then adding back categories, moving the defaultsort so that it gives you the credit of adding all the categories again, etc. Such things may be considered editing for badges/achievements and this is not allowed here. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 07:44, June 24, 2014 (UTC) :::I know it's not allowed but moving the defaultsort don't give the credit of adding all the categories again. I just make everything in source mode as uniform as possible but if you insist I won't change them anymore. --Sherrinford (talk) 07:50, June 24, 2014 (UTC) ::::No, but there is the points that go toward making an edit. With pages like this, it might be more helpful if you were to add content as you edited the rest of it. 12:08, June 24, 2014 (UTC) 'Defaultsort' As a general rule, the 'defaultsort' doesn't need to be added if the sorting is the same as the pagename :) 00:17, June 29, 2014 (UTC) :Also, edits like this to this (removing part of the sorting and then adding it again) might be construed as badge-editing. Don't do it if it's unneeded. 12:25, June 30, 2014 (UTC) ::I'd just like to echo what Fruipit's said and advise you to be careful when editing. This edit for example, where you removed the category then added it again, could also be interpreted as editing for badges. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 14:13, June 30, 2014 (UTC) :::Oh, ok but it was going to be added again anyway since I change the DEFAULTSORT. --Sherrinford (talk) 14:27, June 30, 2014 (UTC) Edits These edits can be done by a bot, so there's no need to clog up the RWA. 13:12, July 1, 2014 (UTC) :As can these. Please stop making them, unless you plan on actually adding more content to articles at the same time. 14:56, July 1, 2014 (UTC) ::Also, these edits. Please don't make them if they can be done by bots. 14:44, July 3, 2014 (UTC) Edit summary Could you try to always leave an edit summary - especially when deleting material such as the quotes you removed from two pages. That way people can see your reasoning and wont just think you're going around removing things for no apparent reason. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 15:18, July 1, 2014 (UTC) Baker Street Baker Street isn't really important. It's just a street, with no actual content-value aside from the fact that it's the street in which Sherlock and John live in most adaptations. I don't think it's long enough, and I think pages look better without the red links. If we end up creating the page, then we can add the link to it. 15:07, July 3, 2014 (UTC) :Baker Street is important since 221B is located there and other modern locations. The red links serve as a reminder that it needs a page. --Sherrinford (talk) 15:08, July 3, 2014 (UTC) ::Baker Street is just a street. What sort of information are we going to put on it that makes it longer than a stub article? And if we don't realise we need a page for it, it mustn't be noteworthy enough. The actual address is noteworthy; the street is not. 15:10, July 3, 2014 (UTC) Shinichi vs. Shin'ichi There's no need to be rude. No, I don't watch Detective Conan, however as the characters for 'Shin'ichi' are '新一' (shin and ichi), I changed it to reflect the fact that it isn't, as most people who have a faint understanding of Japanese would think, 'Shi/ni/chi', which would require three characters. As I said in my edit summary, the apostrophe is used when there is ambiguity as to the spelling and meaning of the word when it is romanised. 08:28, July 4, 2014 (UTC) :I'm not being rude, I was simply asking. --Sherrinford (talk) 08:31, July 4, 2014 (UTC) ::Ahh, my mistake ^^" It just felt a little sharp, sorry. 08:33, July 4, 2014 (UTC) Linking to redirects Please don't link to redirects. It looks bad, will have to be changed later, and just isn't how links should be made. If you want the name to read as something different from the page name then do so like this: Not Dr Watson, it should be Dr Watson Not Lord Blackwood, it should be Lord Blackwood Hope this helps. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 20:26, July 5, 2014 (UTC) Cat Yes, but those are actually main characters—the point of the film/TV show/etc. A species of bee, no matter how you look at it, cannot be considered a 'character' of a television show unless it has some type of characterise-ing. They are animals in this instance, not bees. 16:19, July 6, 2014 (UTC) :It's not just Euglassia Watsonia, the other animals are classified as characters as well. It's not just any bee, it's the bee Sherlock discovered himself. It warrants a character category. --Sherrinford (talk) 16:22, July 6, 2014 (UTC) ::Just because Sherlock discovered the bee does not make it a character. It means that he he discovered it; nothing more, nothing less. What other animals? Clyde? I disagree with him being classified as a character, too; if they don't have a personality, how can they actually be a character? A show requires some form of character development and personality, of which neither Clyde nor a species of bee possess. 16:26, July 6, 2014 (UTC) :::Because they played a part in the show. A character does not need character development to be considered a character. Do you know what a 'flat' character is? It's a character that does not change throughout. As for personality, Clyde has it. It wakes Watson up. --Sherrinford (talk) 16:29, July 6, 2014 (UTC) ::::An alarm can wake Watson up, and if it has a cheery voice does that mean it's a character? And a 'flat' character occurs when the creators fail in developing their characters. They always have some personality, no matter what. An animal such as a tortoise and a bee in a live action show cannot have a personality unless it is *made* to. Considering the bee was featured for less than five minutes and it didn't do anything beyond Sherlock going "Hey, I named this after you", it's impossible for it to have a personality. In regards to Clyde, how did he feel about being an ambulance? He didn't feel anything because he's a turtle. They aren't characters. 16:32, July 6, 2014 (UTC) :::::So you just put them under the Elementary category, look at what's categorised there. Give them proper credit. There's no harm in adding them as characters and since Clyde has appeared in many episodes and once has given Sherlock the idea of who the culprit is. They played a part in Elementary, they're living creatures so they're a character.--Sherrinford (talk) 16:36, July 6, 2014 (UTC) I still disagree. They are categorised under 'animals' along with five others. There is no reason to categorise them as 'characters' when they aren't. Again, Watson's phone plays an important part in Elementary, but it's not a character. 16:39, July 6, 2014 (UTC) :Because it's a non-living thing. So Optimus Prime, Nemo, Buzz and Woody are not characters just because of that? You're discriminating here. Not evryone can be a main character but is still a character. --Sherrinford (talk) 16:43, July 6, 2014 (UTC) ::No, it's not because of that. I consider Appa and Momo from Avatar: The Last Airbender to be characters because they have a) a personality b) develop and c) are there for more than the plot (ie. they're considered by the story itself to be worth more than just plot). In the same show, a horse is not considered a character because it has no personality. It's used as a bode of transport; it's used by the story to be a means to an end, no more.. The key word here is 'personality'. In the wild, do bees have personality? No, they don't. In this series, do they have a personality? No, they don't. Same with Clyde. Him 'waking up Watson' does not mean he has a personality; he didn't do it on purpose. He had no idea what he was doing. He's a turtle. The same occurs when he 'gave' Sherlock the idea of who the culprit might be. All of that was purely circumstantial. He gave Sherlock the idea just by being. Not because he's a character. A clock, or a word out of place is enough to trigger people. Doesn't make those things characters. I will never agree with having them be considered characters, and so to avoid all of this now unnecessary back and forth, perhaps contacting someone else and getting a second opinion would be best. 16:53, July 6, 2014 (UTC) Sock puppeting It's been confirmed to me by wikia staff that you have been sock puppeting for the purposes of supporting yourself in arguments, carrying on an edit war, and in order to harass another user. Because some of the IP addresses you have been using are already blocked for six months I have no choice but to immediately block you for the same length of time. Given the seriousness of your actions I feel this is quite lenient. If the sock puppeting continues you will be blocked for a year and if it still continues after that you will be blocked permanently. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 08:35, July 8, 2014 (UTC) :Because you have continued to sock puppet using another IP address, I am extending your block to a year. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 07:23, July 26, 2014 (UTC) Blanking your talk page Messages on your talk page should stay as a record of previous discussions. If you wish to remove them you can place them into an archive after your block is lifted. Since you deleted your talk page twice I have now blocked you from editing it. If you need to contact me on a different matter please do so at Community Central. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 22:51, July 15, 2014 (UTC) Permanently blocked due to ban evasion You have been warned on two occasions that if you continued to edit here whilst blocked you would be permanently banned. Due to you editing from this IP address: User:121.54.54.42 I have had no choice but to ban you permanently. Any further accounts or IP addresses you use will also be banned. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 18:04, November 4, 2014 (UTC)